Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday May 18, 2009 @11:54PM
from the publishers-must-be-thrilled dept.

eldavojohn writes "It's a simple model — you buy used games for a third of the price of a new one from patrons. Then you turn around and sell the game for two-thirds the normal price to other patrons that have not yet enjoyed the title. Such has been the model for stores like GameStop. The great part about that business is a recession can sometimes help their market, as gamers look to save a few bucks any way possible. Well, today Wal-Mart launched kiosks in 77 of its stores that vend used video games. Looking like a RedBox DVD kiosk, these automated machines are full of bugs, but spell trouble for businesses like GameStop. This should also pique the interest of used-game opponents and provide a bigger target for them to go after if they get the politicians on their side."

Blizzard, almost exclusively, makes computer games that have CD keys which make them nearly impossible to resell. Once someone registers their game, especially with their new battle.net system, no one else can use that key.

Blizzard, almost exclusively, makes computer games that have CD keys which make them nearly impossible to resell. Once someone registers their game, especially with their new battle.net system, no one else can use that key.

Virtually all products are on their way towards being designed to be impossible to resell. Including automobiles-- and even now, after a few years the computers or batteries or some critical custom part becomes unavailable, and the plastic and rubber breaks down. Why would the car companies want to have to compete with their old models for your business? Of course, it's short sighted-- as the very reason I choose a car is often because I know the old models are still servicable. But businesses are short

I hate to break this to you, but almost all PC software has a CD-key or something similar. Your statement makes no sense.

If you say that you don't buy Blizzard because of their CD-keys, then you basically should just admit that you either don't buy PC-games, pirate the games, or only play demos, because there are very few companies that don't use some sort of protection like that.

Does walmart know this....most EBGames geeks might...but the regular counter clerk at Walmart is far from a geek.. unless they force someone to review purchases before they happen...they might get stuck with people selling their wow accounts for more then they r worth.

Are you telling me you think this business model works at the upper most level?Who do you think accepts the used games, the President? Seriously, before coming downon someone who has been gaming for years and is a valued member at EBGames which was for the most part the foremost successful store to purchase used games from people, still had a business modelwhere the person accepting the used game had to review if there were any scratches or was a cdkey licensed game only.

Exactly my thought. Give them a bigger target? WTF? I just know oodles of politicians that are willing to go against a company that is so entrenched in nearly every city to earn the favor of MUCH smaller video game industry. You know...that industry that those politicians just love to kick around with their violent video game stuff... I think the *ONLY* argument that could work is "See! Walmart is making it easier for kids to get our Blood n Guts School Shooter Deluxe XVI!".

There's been some rumblings from console devs that they're wanting to put DRM on it to prevent used sales. Seems they're convinced that somehow, because they only profit once, that's unfair if the game trades hands again. You know, just like how car manufacturers couldn't survive if people bought used cars.

... I guess now is not the best time to make that sarcastic comment, but before anyone says anything to that end, I think we can agree that the big problem for the american auto industry is not used car sales.

However, if GM were to cry foul on used car sales, everyone and their mother would jump on them.

Where've you been? It's already happened. I just tried to resell my mom's 10 year old Chevy Lumina, and the rubber gaskets in the engine were made out of such cheap materials, the intake manifold gasket is now shot and they tell me the head gasket will be next in short order. It's worthless, even though it has less than 40K miles on it. Was it intentional by GM or incompetence? Either way, the car is more

There's been some rumblings from console devs that they're wanting to put DRM on it to prevent used sales. Seems they're convinced that somehow, because they only profit once, that's unfair if the game trades hands again. You know, just like how car manufacturers couldn't survive if people bought used cars.

I'm surprised that nobody at GM has yet thought to blame used cars sales for their recent debacle. Or why Freddie and Fannie didn't blame realters for their near-collapse. [sarcasm] Because nothing destroys a business like the selling of used goods! [/sarcasm]

... I guess now is not the best time to make that sarcastic comment, but before anyone says anything to that end, I think we can agree that the big problem for the american auto industry is not used car sales.

So you say... but it's pretty hard to deny that using DRM to lock down an engine when the car is resold would be a *very* effective way for the car companies to increase new car sales volume -- or at least service revenue, for the $299 "pre-owned authentication fee" that would be marketed as a way of e

There's been some rumblings from console devs that they're wanting to put DRM on it to prevent used sales. Seems they're convinced that somehow, because they only profit once, that's unfair if the game trades hands again. You know, just like how car manufacturers couldn't survive if people bought used cars.... I guess now is not the best time to make that sarcastic comment, but before anyone says anything to that end, I think we can agree that the big problem for the american auto industry is not used car

Games will continue moving towards a service model with micro-payments that is far more locked down. MMOs, Steam, XBox Live, show the success of removing the physical media and binding games to hosted accounts.In this model it's more difficult to resell a game, since game access is provided as a service of your account. Moreover, the companies can restrict reuse by offering access to certain content only via their servers.

With internet connectivity you can probably play your game at your friend's house, just log into your account. Resell though will be killed, since the selling of accounts circumvents copyright with a service EULA. Also, there will be psychological attachment with achievements. You won't want to sell your game because you need the points to meet meta-game promotions.

For the big software companies service models are better than DRM since it gets them out of the unwinnable arms race. It creates value for

If you agree that GameStop is bad for gaming, then this isn't really worse. I don't think Wal-Mart doing it is going to increase the overall trade in used games. If you don't agree that GameStop is bad for gaming, then you don't care about this move anyway.

As such, I'm actually quite happy to hear the news simply because I hope they kick GameStop's ass. I don't buy games from them, but I've read enough of the Penny Arcade to completely [penny-arcade.com] loathe [penny-arcade.com] them [penny-arcade.com]. [penny-arcade.com]

I, too, enjoy forming an extremely strong opinion about some person/company from entirely one source. Above all, from a webcomic with no references and no legitimate claim against the group in question. Besides, this is Wal-Mart - I was brought up being taught that they're well, not the best guys around... dunno whether I really believe it though, nor do I care as I never shop there.

Above all, from a webcomic with no references and no legitimate claim against the group in question.

It isn't a good source for forming opinions, except when we're talking about something as trivial as corporate loyalty (which we are). Also, no legitimate claim? Their criticisms, while not as well referenced as a wikipedia page, are legitimate. Gamestop DOES DO THOSE THINGS. And they are annoying.

Not that one, I was talking about their policy of "try to punish customers into reserving by not doing a good job of guessing how many copies we need to stock up on and yelling at them in the store." Seriously, gamestop needs to hire a guy to decide how many copies to buy. Games they think will sell great, they buy in extreme excess. Almost every store has dozens of copies of unsold maddens from years past, marked at around $5. On the other hand, games they don't think will be as popular, they get exact

You apparently also enjoy posting uninformed mini-rants. Do you even read Penny Arcade? If you do, you know that every day they post a news post with lots of links. Over the years, they've posted links to plenty of stories of verifiable shenanigans by GameStop/EBgames. Typically they just show up on PA a few days before the other sites I read.

Wal-Mart is evil, no doubt. But it's kind of a faceless evil. GameStop is evil with the face of a douchebag. So yeah, I'm going to have to root for Wal-Mart on

As such, I'm actually quite happy to hear the news simply because I hope they kick GameStop's ass. I don't buy games from them, but I've read enough of the Penny Arcade to completely [penny-arcade.com] loathe [penny-arcade.com] them [penny-arcade.com] . [penny-arcade.com]

New used games suck they are used and not much of a savings in dollars. The only good thing about this is if WalMart sells lots of horrible games that suck so much you can't give them away. At least you have a way of disposing of them and recouping a few pennies. Having a place to buy older games like PS1 or SuperNES games is valuable to the gaming community. Places that sell games you can't buy anymore! Our local video store sells these games for $2-$5. Sometimes they are scratched but you don't feel rippe

I guess they had to get in while they still could, but with digital distribution being the future whats the point in conquering a business model that has possibly peaked? Then again it is only costing them kiosk space and electricity, I'm sure RedBox is paying for much of the hardware. Still, it sounds like Wally World is getting a little slow or at least complacent given that they have conquered much of the US.

I don't see (official) online distribution pushing out hard copies for awhile yet, and that goes double for consoles (which is what this story is about).

The primary item is the available connectivity and the sheer size of modern games. For example, I'll take fallout 3, disc size, 5.52GB. Taking a standard fare 768kbps connection, that's about 16 hours. Compared to 1 hour (or less) for me to drive to town, buy the game, and come home. And don't forget that 5.52GB comes out of the ever so trendy transfer

Ok, just think for a minute people. How convenient is it to go to a GameStop? They're usually in malls, or sometimes in small shopping centers. Those are two places you only go to when you need to buy crap you don't really need.

Now with Walmart, they already have an entire store full of everything you could find at a strip mall but cheaper, plus groceries.

So this means there's a lot of people that go there on a weekly basis. Not just any people, but people that can't afford the rip offs at the mall. Th

Sorry I'm not too familiar with how it works at gamestop. I've only been in one three times in my life, and I've known about the place since they've been called Funcoland. Two of those times were to buy something but they were out of it, so I just walked across the shopping center to Toys-R-Us and they had it. I was just trying to support a gaming store at the time.

I think the only used game I ever bought from there was Sega GT for the xbox for something like $3. That was an ok deal I think. Only new g

The great part about that business is a recession can sometimes help their market, as gamers look to save a few bucks any way possible.

I'm always looking to save some bucks, as the money I can spend on games each year is limited due to the lack of a job. However, I don't do it by buying used games. I wait for the price to go down, and for promotions.

Ever since I got a Wii, and am planning to buy a DS Lite, I've been buying lots of games at half the price or even less as older games for those systems I have

With Steam infesting every game that comes out nowadays forcing you to tie a game to an account and forcing you to activate online for the sole purpose of killing the second hand market off I'm guessing this'll be a fairly short lived venture for PC games at least.

Still it's not a bad idea for the console market and I guess that's where most money is now in this anyway?

You can always try to get the non-Steam version too if Valve isn't the original publisher. I always check the title-specific forums on steampowered.com and look for people complaining about bad patches or poor 3rd party + Valve support. Some games don't work well Steam, easiest to just stay away from those.

No problem here. If you plan to resell the game, make another steam account just for this game and go for it. You could even easily sell it on EBay, all you have to do is transfer the account data to the buyer, he can download it from Steam, no need to send the media.

I guess it depends how many games you have, but having one e-mail address per game is a bit over the top, people really shouldn't have to deal with that.

Also, afaik, as part of the EULA you're not allowed to sell on or allow accounts to change hands, so Valve can also easily get eBay to pull such auctions, it also prevents you selling to places like Walmart etc. because they wont deal with this sort of thing.

Yes, unfortunately so far eBay would disagree with you, hence why they no longer allow auctions of virtual gold and so forth meaning regardless of what you feel about EULAs, eBay will still pull auctions on request for that sort of thing and Walmart etc. will still refuse to deal with electronic accounts and keeping an e-mail address per game is still a ball ache.

IMHO game publishers are coming at this from the wrong angle - they should be looking at the second hand market as an opportunity rather than a threat. Over the last year or two there has been a growing trend for games to have paid-for DLC (see Guitar Hero/Rock Band as prime examples). Since this content doesn't get resold when the game does the new owner may well then re-buy the DLC.

So although yes they might miss out on the profit from the original game sale (assuming that the person who bought it second hand would otherwise have bought a new copy) they ARE still making money.

Also don't forget trade ins - many console owners I know (myself included) will trade old games for money off new ones, often allowing us to buy more NEW games then we would have done otherwise. Why not embrace this? Publishers could offer incentives if people trade in one their older games for a sequel, or a direct competitor to their game - say trading in Guitar Hero for Rock Band etc.

When the music market changed under them (i.e. the internet) the industry tried to fight the change rather than embracing it as a new opportunity, that didn't work out too well did it?

Also don't forget trade ins - many console owners I know (myself included) will trade old games for money off new ones, often allowing us to buy more NEW games then we would have done otherwise. Why not embrace this?

I'm not taking any side here, but I think the way they'd look at it is as follows. Some person goes and spends $40 buying a used game. In exchange, the store skims off $20 and passes the other $20 to you so that you have an additional $20 to invest in the new games market. However, if the used market didn't exist, presumably that person would only buy games 2/3 as often (as he'd have to spend $60 each time instead of $40) but it would be invested in the new games market. Granted you'd also only buy your new

You make games that are very replayable and epic.. Then people won't trade them in. I haven't traded in ANY of my GTA series or Fallout 1 & 2, Nor have I traded in Battlefield 2 or Company of heroes or Men of War..

If a game is too easy to complete and only fun on the 1st play through of course I am going to trade it in once I have completed it, there is no incentive to keep it.

Don't release DLC (Downloadable Crap) that I have to pay for instead release expansions.

Due to ludicrous Florida laws, all new used media stores are to be treated as pawn shops. In other words, you have to fill out paperwork and, I believe, give a thumb print to be able to trade in a videogame...

Here's another anecdote. I used to buy belts at Walmart for about $10-$15. Unfortunately, the 'pleather' would crack over the buckle and around the tongue in about a week. So now I go to a men's store and spend $30-$50 on one that lasts for years.

I used to buy shirts at Walmart for $15 or so. But they would barely make it a year before becoming threadbare. So now I buy my shirts from L.L. Bean for $30, but they last for years. Moreover, L.L. Bean has what amounts to a lifetime guarantee on their cloth

The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, a

Here's some ways it could be improved, though: the system only takes discs, and tests them when they're fed in. If they don't pass, it spits out the disc and tells you to go fuck yourself. The machines are on the internet, and you can find out in realtime the closest location with the game you want, what games are inside your closest kiosk, et cetera. Finally, put one in my neighborhood. We have no gamestop.

I'm not saying it's ok. I'm just saying I would rather as a book publisher have you save your limited resources to spend on one of my books instead of going to a used book store and spending money there.

75% of the used game price disappears into Gamestop. As far as the game ecosystem is concerned that money is gone. Your customers are expending their limited teen dollars on a product that in no way what so ever brings a profit.

If instead of buying and reselling 2 games these teens pirated those 2 games a

I'm just saying I would rather as a book publisher have you save your limited resources to spend on one of my books instead of going to a used book store and spending money there.

75% of the used game price disappears into Gamestop. As far as the game ecosystem is concerned that money is gone. Your customers are expending their limited teen dollars on a product that in no way what so ever brings a profit.

If instead of buying and reselling 2 games these teens pirated those 2 games and simply purchased a third new the publisher would make more money than if they threw their money into the big bonfire that is the used game market.

And I would love everyone of you to send me all your money without anything whatsoever in return.

Used games are part of the game ecosystem. The limited teen dollars might not be spent on a 60$ new game without the option to get some of that money back to begin wtih. So you'd end up with 3 pirated games and no sale at all. Sounds much better to me. At least publishers still would have something to bitch about. Oh and it's not their fault... ever.

This is actually getting fairly close to just ignoring copyright and seeing it more directly as a matter of rewarding creators for their work. Copyright exists to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", and insofar as the way it works in the current world leads to some of these weird results, one solution is what you propose: ignore the legal rules of copyright, and instead try to honestly think of how to allocate your money to benefit the creators. However, this requires a level of honesty that

The money spent on used games does not vanish as you claim. When an individual sells a game, they receive cash back (or trade in value on something else). This means that the outlay for the original purchase of the game is effectively reduced, making it more affordable. Second, buying used games is a good way to cheaply (and currently legal way) of getting exposure to games. This exposure can and does encourage the purchase of new games in the same genre or publisher or series, assuming the

Except that the kind of people that sell their games typically turn right around and buy another -- if you consider that the two scenarios begin to balance. Sure there are some people who will turn around and buy another used game, but many people find buying used games at a 20% discount a little hard to swallow when you can typically find the same new games at a 20% discount if your patient enough to shop around.

Most of his logic is pretty off kilter, but he does have one point. Gamestop tends to sell used games at new game prices. I can't tell you how many times I've bought a game, released at a suggested retail of $50, for $40 (new) at retail store X while Gamestop is *still* selling the used copy for $40. They almost never reduce their prices, at least on modern consoles and your treated like a potential criminal if you dare to ask to see the game before you purchase it. Honestly I'm surprised they've lasted so

I don't buy used games on principle. (Wait... so I'm paying someone for a game and simultaneously not giving the content creators any money? Why not just pirate it and spend more money on new games if I'm not going to pay the creators?)

But even if I wasn't against the concept of used games I still don't see the financial incentive. Gamestop will pay me less than the parking fee to go in and sell them a game. If I were to drive to a free-parking gamestop it would cost more in gas than they would give me. The used prices of new games tend to be almost the same as new. ~$45-50 for new releases and games on steam tend to be priced as low or lower for older games.

If you aren't going to buy it new you might as well just pirate it and save the money going to Wal-Mart.

By giving money to someone who purchases new games, you are providing them with more resources to purchase more new games, and support new content creators. Or to put it another way, would you buy a car that you knew would have no value on the used car market? Auto companies like good resale value, so that one guy will buy a new car every year.

Also, if you save up a few games, it might just cover your parking. And give you cash for a new game. (Which is the point)

I don't buy used games on principle. (Wait... so I'm paying someone for a game and simultaneously not giving the content creators any money? Why not just pirate it and spend more money on new games if I'm not going to pay the creators?)

What principle is that? The principle of irrational consumer? I know lots of people will buy a game new knowing that there will be a used market for it later when they're done.

If you aren't going to buy it new you might as well just pirate it and save the money going to Wal-M

I don't really agree with this point. It makes sense for multiplayer games, but a lot of single-player games (like films and TV shows) are very enjoyable to play once, but become less enjoyable when you play them again. Given the choice between playing them twice, or playing them once and then playing another similar-quality game once, the second is more fun. Think of them like books and DVDs; lots of people buy these and sell them second-hand because they never watch a film or read a book twice.

RPGs and games that allow alot of character customization are usually single player, but the personal replay value is really high if you liked it the first time, I have played final fantasy 1 on the nes with every char combination possible, but would i get rid of it, heck no.
I think that is a thought lost on many of the new rpgs is some people WOULD rather run 4 white mages around for the challenge (and the bragging rights) than have a forced "fair" team.

Sure, there will always be some people who sell their old games, but if a game is good enough, few people will sell back their games to where they're actually competing with new sales. Videogames, like movies, make all their money in the first few months. If people grow tired of the games 6 months later and start selling them back, and some people who were interested but not enough to buy it at new prices start buying it, the game has already profited. If there were no used market, the numbers of people

That logic is whacky. So does that mean that you won't buy a house or a car second-hand (or sell your own after you have bought it) because this would mean that neither GM or the Architect got paid again? If so, I assume that you want to make sales of used cars illegal, and require that people raze their houses sell when they move so that architects and construction firms get paid again by the new person who buys the land? If not, please explain why you think that the first sale doctrine apply to everyone except game makers?

Sorry, but that's silly. It IS the same thing. I do know many people who (sadly, imo) buy a new car every year and sell the old one. I also know a lot of people who refuse to ever buy new cars because of the high cost and the risk of investing in a untried technology.

The resale value of cars is higher than games because the cost of flipping an item is relatively fixed. You have to pay a kid minimum wage (or more) to spend half an hour per used game receiving and stocking it. The cost of storing it as c

The resale value of cars is still significantly lower than the cost of the car new. That's my point. Generally speaking, people can't afford to be trading in a car while the manufacturer is still making a profit out of the "brand spanking new" sales. Just because you might know someone who can afford a new car every few months doesn't mean that that's the buying habits of the majority.
As to housing I don't see your point. The "basic repairs" add value, so its to be expected that you sell it for more money

I wouldn't say all resale markets are identical, but they all function. Just like books and cds and cassette tapes, the game market functions fine.

If anything it encourages the opposite of what you claim - "blockbusters" are games that flood the resale market, with more profits to resellers. By making smaller niche titles, it's harder to find those titles on the resale market, and the publisher can sleep at night knowing that no one else is profiting from the game after he does.

Righto, I've just typed a monster of a reply to bsdaemonaut below(#28011267) so I'll direct you to that for the crux of my argument.

I see your point that in a capitalist society asking for hand outs isn't cool. My point is that in a capitalist society you're going to get well and truly screwed up the arse by the game developers, because you're forcing them ALL to adopt unpleasant tactics in order to make a profit.

I think perhaps video games are something new really. They don't suffer from wear and tear like

That makes zero sense. By your logic then, it would be comparatively hard to find a used car, but it's not. Typically everyone buying a new car brings a trade in. The same is not true for video games. Many car dealers have as many used cars as they do new, many more are purely used car lots. Its precisely why cars are so much more expensive and last so much longer that car manufacturers have to compete with used sales so much more. Rich Guy A is able to buy himself a new car every 2-3 years, but Poor Guy B,

No no, I don't think you understand my point. It's easy to find a used car, yes. It's bloody hard to pick up a used car that was released a week ago, though, because noone can afford to swap cars every other week. By the time the car company has a new car out to sell to all the people who want brand spanking new cars their last model is a year or two old. They still get to make big money on the new model.
The games industry makes almost all their money on new releases. A few months after release very few p

This logic just doesn't hold up, you can't compare the two that way. Yes, games are cycled through quickly, but the stakes are higher with cars. It doesn't take *nearly* the same amount of resources to create a game. The R&D as well as the manufacturing process, not to mention the maintenance of the manufacturing process, are all so much more when manufacturing a car. That's why they cost so much. Furthermore a game is less likely to be bought used, after it has been out a while no one wants it.. they w

All a very intersting discussion about the merits and impact on viability of a resale market, but in the end here is my thought: So What! I'm sorry but I don't care if it is harder to make money in the game market because the time cycle is shorter blah blah blah. I bought a game, I should be able to turn around and sell it without being restricted by the content creator. That is all there is to it. The market WILL sort it out and there will be winners and losers based on the QUALITY of the games and not

Console games don't really use DRM, well.. not at least beyond attempts to stop actual copying of media. They don't require registration, serial numbers, restrict content, and all that jazz. It's one of the reasons there is a used game market for consoles.. so in that respect DRM may be very tempting for publishers to add to their console releases in the future. That's one thing we'd like to avoid. Of course the other reason that PCs don't have a resale market is the ease of pirating. Yet, if the industry s

I think you'd be surprised at the resources needed to create games these days. Budgets run at tens of millions even for the cheap and cheerful. The really big names run to hundreds of millions. They're by no means a guaranteed cash cow. Most new games, in fact, make a loss, which the publishers try to offset with their blockbuster cash cow titles.

That aside though, I agree it costs a lot more to make a car, and therefore follows that it should cost a lot more to buy one. That's not what I'm arguing. It boil

Just because the publisher doesn't get any money doesn't make it ok to pirate.

That is like saying, since the car manufacturer doesn't get money from buying that car you should steal it?

Used games cost that much? I have on occasion gotten 2 used games for 1/3 the price of one new game. (new games go up to $110 for guitar hero etc, got 2 used games for $25). And the person who sold them got credit to buy new games.

I would much rather pay $45 for a slightly used game, then the $75 for the new one.

I don't buy used games on principle. (Wait... so I'm paying someone for a game and simultaneously not giving the content creators any money? Why not just pirate it and spend more money on new games if I'm not going to pay the creators?)

Except that when you buy used your money IS going to the creator (or at least his publisher). It goes to the publisher by proxy of the original purchaser who may not have considered the original selling price to be reasonable without the ability to resell it and recoup some of that cost. Similarly for all additional sales on down the line until the game eventually ends up in somebody's trash can.

But even if I wasn't against the concept of used games I still don't see the financial incentive. Gamestop will pay me less than the parking fee to go in and sell them a game.

Even if your characterization of Gamestop's pricing is accurate, they are by no means the only way to buy and s

Civilisation II, would I sell it? Let's assume for a second I'd still get a buck for it, I wouldn't! I want to play that game again, over and over, from time to time. The replay value is stunning, even though it's essentially the same game again over and over, but still, it's fun to just dig it up and play. There are often months between sessions because, well, its new car smell is off, but it's still fun.

When a game gives me the thrill of my life for 5 hours but is essentially boring afterwards, it should better not cost more than 5 hours of other entertainment. 2-3 good movies, admission to an amusement park for half a day, an evening on the town. All those things are 'over' after they're consumed, and likewise, that game is 'over' and consumed if I can't enjoy it anymore after 5 hours and I can't sell it either.

so I'm paying someone for a game and simultaneously not giving the content creators any money?

What makes you think you're paying anyone? Artists who work on video games don't get royalties. To a large extent, this is true of film and music as well. So the artist isn't directly affected. He's indirectly affected because the development studio he works for possibly gets less money from the publisher (because the developer is usually compensated based on volume of sales).

I have little sympathy for the game publishers. The margin on brand new $60 games is less than $2 for GameStop and other retailers. T